Nigeyy said:
Cab,
I really don't think you're getting the point; I'm not saying filtering is legal or illegal, merely that you choose a course of action, and you have to work out for yourself what's best. I'm not reinforcing anything!
Yes, you are. If you act in a way which othere erroeneously believe is required of you, you're reinforcing that erroneous view. Doesn't mean that you should never do it, but its impossible to dispute that fact.
I still stand by my assertion that filtering down the middle of traffic just isn't as safe as the alternative of maintaining primary/secondary. Legal of not legal -doesn't make a difference. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Filter on!
Legal/not legal does make a difference. If you're legally allowed to do it and others are required to look out for people doing it, then of course it makes a difference.
But to address some of your points:
1. if you do choose to filter forward, it means the probability of you passing by some unobservant careless driver is surely increased, yes? I'll assert it's not the same if you stay where you are.
Yes. The probability of passing by an unobservant driver is increased; yet the probability of an unobservant driver opening a door that leads straight in to traffic is
tiny, getting doored is usually the result of filtering kerb side or going too close around the outside of a parked vehicle. I maintain that I have never seen nor hear of any cyclist getting doored between lanes of traffic. So, simply, you're multiplying up a risk that is negligible, the risk is still therefore negligible,
2. Even you state "if you judge it just right and don't have to stop", surely again, that's an indication of a further judgement you must make -exposing yourself to error here?
Indeed. You can make mistakes and get things all wrong. True of all cycling. But now you're getting to the point where you just don't ride in traffic because of your own fallibility.
3. No, I haven't heard of anyone being doored while filtering. But then again, I don't know anybody who does that action. I don't know of anyone personally being knocked down by a train either, but again that's because I don't know people who walk on tracks. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to walk on train tracks though, eh?
There are hundreds, even thousands of footpaths crossing railway lines, many of them with no signals at all, no level crossing, yet people regularly fail to be run over by trains. In fact those places where it is safe and legal for people to cross or move along railway lines are spectacularly safe. Not sure what point you're making there to be honest. You're comparing a safe action with filtering between lanes of static traffic...
I can say I have seen drivers pull out/change lanes unexpectedly with a fair degree of certainty they didn't look when changing lanes at traffic queues. I'll say it again: careless car drivers won't expect you to be there. I don't know about you, but that's really good enough reason for me!
That traffic in the example was bumper to bumper, no one could move out until it started to shift. Mag wasn't going to be hit by someone changing lanes there because no one could possibly change lanes without sideswiping another vehicle.
4. and read my post -c a r e f u l l y. At no point am I asserting Magnatom's actions resulted in the close overtake. I was simply commenting on his filtering at the light. In fact the very first thing I did was clearly state the overtaking motorist was at fault.
And again I'll say it -you pays your money, you takes your choice.
I didn't accuse you of blaming Mag, I asserted more strongly than you had that not only was this not Mags fault, but the filtering issue is utterly, totally irrelevent to the matter in hand because there is no vague link between the two.
You realise that we are talking about the car in front with the faulty brake lights?
